More shocking news continued to emerge this week. All right ... it
wasn't
really all that shocking, and isn't anything that hasn't been reported
on this website and elsewhere for months now. But for those who are
just
emerging from their media-induced comas, here is what has now been
officially
acknowledged: U.S. intelligence agencies knew that plans were in the
works
to hijack commercial airliners and use them as guided missiles.
According
to some reports, they knew this at least as far back as 1995: http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/09/18/inv.hijacking.philippines/

Included in these reports are, of course, some not-so-clever bits of
disinformation intended to: shift the blame away from the current
administration
and onto its predecessor; reinforce the notion that Islamic terrorists,
acting autonomously, planned and carried out the attacks; and promote
the
idea that, if any current officeholders are to blame, it is only
low-level
operatives within the FBI and certainly not anyone in the White House.
The point here though is that U.S. authorities were repeatedly warned,
through a variety of channels, that the attacks were coming (including
warnings that came by way of Echelon:
http://www.newsbytes.com/news/01/170072.html).

So too was the so-called "Patriot Act" drafted before September 11:
http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/05.21B.jvb.usapa.911.htm.
It too was just waiting for a suitable provocation before being passed
into law. This is hardly surprising. It should be readily apparent that
such a massive document wasn't just snatched out of thin air overnight.

I should mention here as well that the claims put forth by certain
congressional
representatives suggesting that our fearless lawmakers didn't read the
act before signing it into law are entirely disingenuous. That
contention
assumes that our exalted representatives personally read through any of
the thousands of pages of legislation that they sign into law every
year.
It also assumes that the numerous reactionary provisions contained
within
the document haven't been bouncing around Washington for years. Both of
these assumptions are patently false.

This story was obviously floated out there in an attempt to preserve
the absurd notion that there is still some actual differences in
opinion
between the 'Republicans/Conservatives' and the 'Democrats/Liberals' in
Congress, despite the almost complete lack of opposition to the bill
("Well,
you know, we would have opposed it if they would have let us read it.
We're
still on the side of the people. Really."). I won't even comment here
on
the fitness to hold office of those who would claim to have signed-off
on the most sweeping attack on civil rights this country has ever seen,
without even reading what they were signing.

Make no mistake about it: the almost complete lack of resistance to
the Bush agenda on Capitol Hill did not begin on September 11, and can
hardly be attributed to well-intentioned 'patriotism' in the wake of
the
attacks on the Pentagon and the WTC towers. To illustrate that point,
here
is a laundry list of reactionary legislation and executive appointments
pushed through by the Bush administration, with only token opposition,
in the months before "everything changed": http://www.truefacts.co.uk/cgi-bin/artcl?a=dubya

In other news, it seems that the gargantuan A380 Airbus is set to
make
its debut in U.S. airports soon, which raises the obvious question of:
if it is such an easy task to hijack a commercial airliner and convert
it into a guided missile, as the official 9-11 story suggests, then is
it really a good idea to introduce an airplane into America's skies
that
holds some 82,000 gallons of aviation fuel, along with 555 potential
hostages?
Just checking. (http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/la-000035406may19.story)

The article quotes Bush as saying that he was "trying to get out of
harm's way" following the attacks on the World Trade Center towers. The
truth though is that Bush, after being informed of the attacks, chose
to
remain in his vulnerable location for half-an-hour. If he was truly
concerned
about his safety, and truly believed that America was under attack, why
would he choose to remain in a vulnerable, and previously announced,
location?

Obviously, Bush did not feel that his safety was threatened, even
though
it was known that allegedly hijacked flights were still in the air. And
where exactly was Bush? According to Chen, he was "in Sarasota, Fla.,
to
speak on education reform." That is, I must say, a rather interesting
way
to describe what Bush was doing – unless listening to a room full of
schoolchildren
read aloud from a book about a pet goat somehow constitutes speaking on
education reform..

And that is what Bush continued to do long after being notified that
America was under attack. If Bush's current self-serving comments are
to
be believed, then not only was he treasonously derelict in his duties
as
commander-in-chief, but he also knowingly left himself, his staff, and
a school full of children vulnerable to an attack for a full half-hour.

Among the Times other sins this week was running an unsigned
editorial that began: "So intelligence sources informed President Bush
in August that Osama bin Laden's terrorists might attempt to hijack
airplanes?
Excuse us, but administration officials have good reason to look
perplexed
as they wonder aloud what the increasingly indignant chorus of critics
would have had the president do with that amorphous warning. Smart
politicians
will leave the retroactive theorizing about Sept. 11 to the nation's
Art
Bells and Oliver Stones ..." (http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-000035259may19.story?null)

I assume that what the Times is referring to here are the
nation's
much-maligned 'conspiracy theorists' (though many of us do not
appreciate
being lumped in with the likes of Art Bell). The Times would do
well to remember that those of us whom it looks upon with such derision
were reporting these same facts months before the Times got
around
to doing so.

The sociopathic head of the 'secret government,' who projects a
grandfatherly
countenance even while sticking a shiv in your back, coupled those
denunciations
with brazen warnings of an imminent attack that seemed to be drawn
straight
from the "Politics of Fear" playbook. Cheney declared criticism of the
ruling junta at this time of rampant fear-mongering to be "beyond the
pale."
I presume that applies as well to criticism of the fact that, according
to the San Francisco Bay Guardian, "Civilian employees of Dick
Cheney's
former company are carrying out military missions around the world –
for
profit." (http://www.sfbayguardian.com/36/31/cover_soldiersoffortune.html)

This is not to suggest though that this latest round of warnings
will
not be followed by some sort of (staged) 'terrorist' attack. At least
some
members of the Bush administration are, presumably, educated enough to
have read The Boy Who Cried Wolf. They know that eventually
they'll
have to deliver on the warnings. And this is certainly an opportune
time
to do so. Were such a scenario to play out, it is unlikely that the
media
would ever again dare to question whether such warnings are motivated
by
cynicism or a sincere desire to protect the American people.

Of course, resort to such a strategy at this time would be a very
risky
proposition. But then again, this administration has distinguished
itself
by exhibiting an unprecedented arrogance and recklessness. Stay tuned.

In my last newsletter, I raised the question of why the media was
suddenly
taking an interest in the plethora of warnings that were seemingly
deliberately
ignored by various U.S. officials, after ignoring evidence of such
warnings
for months. Here Gilles d'Aymery asks that very same question, and
attempts
to provide an answer. I'm not sure that he fully succeeds in doing so,
but he imparts a good deal of relevant information and insights along
the
way: http://www.swans.com/library/art8/ga129.html
And here, from the same website, is yet another brilliant commentary
from Steve Gowans, whose deconstructions of the collective
hallucination
that we call reality always make for essential reading: http://www.swans.com/library/art8/gowans32.html

Rather was heard to say: "It's unpatriotic not to stand up, look
them
in the eye, and ask the questions they don't want to hear – they being
those who have the responsibility, the ultimate responsibility in a
society
such as ours, of sending our sons and daughters, our husbands, wives,
our
blood, to face death, to take death."

And since coming to that belated realization, what exactly has Mr.
Rather
done to atone for his sins? Has he made these same observations on his
own nightly newscasts, for all of America to hear? NO. Has he now begun
to ask some of the hard questions that he previously, by his own
admission,
avoided? NO. Has he done a damn thing to correct the "self-censorship"
that he attributed to "patriotism run amok"? Of course not.

We are talking here, after all, about the very same Dan Rather who
was
hand-picked to be the first media representative to view the infamous
Zapruder
film of the Kennedy assassination. This was, of course, long before the
film was viewed by the public-at-large, leaving it up to old Dan to
interpret
reality for the huddled masses.

Of course, we all know now that the film clearly shows JFK's head
jerking
violently backward from the impact of the fatal bullet, his brain
matter
exiting through the back of his head. But that's not what Dan claimed
to
have seen. No ... Dan assured America that the film clearly showed the
president's head snapping forward, in accordance with the Warren
Committee's
shameless version of events. And for performing this public service,
Mr.
Rather was of course rewarded with the most prestigious job in the
broadcast
'news' industry -- replacing Walter Cronkite as the CBS anchor.

And speaking of talking heads, I also see where Jerry Dunphy, the
iconic
Los Angeles 'news' anchor, passed away this week. During World War II,
Dunphy piloted a B-29 bomber in the Pacific. He was one of those
directly
responsible for the incineration deaths of hundreds of thousands of
Japanese
civilians residing in the more than fifty "Death List" cities that were
carpet-bombed with high explosives and with incendiary weapons.

In a tribute to Dunphy aired by his network, it was revealed that he
had been chosen as a back-up pilot to fly the missions that unleashed
atomic
weaponry upon the world. He was, in other words, one of the military's
top picks to commit the most egregious acts of instantaneous mass
murder
the world has ever seen. Such is the nature of the men who are assigned
the task of bringing us our daily 'news' -- which says a lot about the
nature of America's 'free press.'

Moving on to other matters of interest, we all know by now of course
that President Jorge has 'negotiated' a new nuclear arms agreement with
Russia that will help us all to sleep just a little better tonight.
Except
that it's basically a sham, as this article quite accurately points
out:
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/may2002/arms-m22.shtml.
And then of course there is the fact that the Russian people, and the
Russian
military, are growing increasingly aware that the U.S.-puppet known as
Vladimir Putin does not have the best interests of Russia in mind: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-304469,00.html

I was going to share with you all a sampling of the hostile
responses
that I received from those members of the Jewish community who refuse
to
tolerate any criticism of the actions of the Israeli government. I
figure
though that you've all heard it before anyway. You know the drill:
"There
are no occupied territories, there are no decimated refugee camps,
yadda,
yadda, yadda,
Ican'tthinkformyselfsoIjustmindlesslyparrotthebullshitthatconstantlyspewsforthfrommytelevisionsetandfromthemouthsofwarcriminalslike
ArielSharonColinPowellandGeorgeBush ..."

I know that this makes them feel better about their cause because
they
send me clippings from far-right commentators hoping to impress upon me
the error of my ways. For instance, just this week I received a piece
penned
by the unholy trinity of William Bennett, Jack Kemp, and Jeane
Kirkpatrick.
I also received an article lifted from the Moonie-run Washington
Times,
and another from WorldNetDaily, which regularly features the
bleating
of Patrick Buchanan, who has been known to write glowing tributes to
Francisco
Franco and apologias for Adolf Hitler.

These clippings come from readers who are, on every other issue,
known
to be intelligent, decent, progressive-minded persons. They are, in
other
words, people who wouldn't be caught dead in any other circumstances
referencing
such voices of reaction. And yet they apparently feel no shame in doing
so now. The desperation with which these readers cling to their
pro-Israel
positions is truly astonishing.

I won't even comment on the mailing that I received which began:
"SOME
OF THE FOLKS YOU SEEM TO BE IN SOLIDARITY WITH, DAVE McGOWAN," and
which
was then followed by an anti-Semitic quote from SS Reichsfuhrer
Heinrich Himmler. This particular mailing, by the way, was lifted from
the book The Origins of the Arab-Jewish Conflict Over Palestine
by Joan Peters -- a book that has been condemned by voices across the
political
spectrum as a shoddy piece of journalism which references sources which
have been proven to not even exist. This book is, by the way, now being
peddled on the WorldNetDaily site.

In my last newsletter, I included a number of links to Jewish run
anti-Zionist
websites that present a much different (which is to say - accurate)
history
of the Israel/Palestine situation than what Ms. Peters presents. For
those
who don't have the time to slog through the hundreds of pages of text
on
those sites, I have been informed that there is a nifty little 'comic'
book that will provide you with a crash course. It is called The
Arabs
and Israel for Beginners, by Ron and Susan David, and it can be
ordered
from: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0863161618/qid%3D1021934935/ref%3Dsr%5F11%5F0%5F1/103-2238099-3168649

Now here's an interesting little story that was easy to miss, given
that it was barely mentioned by the American media. It seems that a
contingent
of Mexican soldiers crossed the U.S./Mexico border this week and opened
fire on U.S. Customs agents: http://www.denverpost.com/framework/0,1918,36%7E53%7E626846%7E,00.html.
One would think that such an overt act of war would be dealt with
rather
harshly by the most belligerent nation on the planet. But one would be
mistaken.

According to a radio report cited by a reader, this was just the
latest
among scores of such border crossings, all of which have been largely
ignored.
According to the Denver Post account, the border crossings are
believed
to be tied to drug trafficking. You don't suppose that the incursions
are
ignored because the Mexican authorities are working hand-in-hand with
their
American counterparts? Nah ... couldn't be.

I see that I still have a fair number of stories to get out here,
and
I've already been rambling on for quite some time and need to wrap this
up. Here then, in no particular order, are some other postings that may
be of interest to readers:
Here's one from the L.A. Times entitled "The CIA Rebuilds on
War Footing" (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-051902intel.story).
One wonders though what type of footing they were on before.
Here's another, from the Washington Post, asserting that the
CIA is rebuilding the FBI as well (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A10990-2002May25.html).
This article, by the way, carries the byline of Walter Pincus. Some
readers
will recall Mr. Pincus as the 'reporter' who once penned a piece
entitled
"How I Traveled Abroad on a CIA Subsidy."
Here's an interesting little web page billing itself as the
"Chickenhawk
Database" (http://www.nhgazette.com/chickenhawks.html).
There you will find a list of war-mongering pols and pundits who never
met a war that they themselves were willing to fight in.
This offering from MSNBC concerns a computer virus sent out by the
U.S. State Department (http://www.msnbc.com/news/754879.asp).
And here we have an article about how Herr Bush has grand plans
to "beef up" the presidency (http://www.detnews.com/2002/politics/0205/20/a03-494211.htm).
And here I was thinking that the illegitimate administration had
already
bestowed unprecedented powers upon itself, while operating in
unprecedented
secrecy. Apparently though, we ain't seen nothing yet.
For some strange reason, that particular story reminded me that I
wanted
to somehow work in this photo of Bush addressing the Reichstag:

Elsewhere in the news, Robert "Baretta" Blake, who had all but
drifted
into obscurity, has now been cast as the star of his very own 'reality'
series set to air on CourtTV. Ratings are expected to be quite
high.
It remains to be seen, however, whether the show, which is essentially
a sequel, can maintain the quality of the original. The cast has not
yet
been fully assembled, so we're still waiting to see who will be playing
the part of 'Kato' this time around. Series' creators are said to be
wooing
Lance Ito in the hopes that he can be persuaded to reprise his role as
the master of ceremonies. If those negotiations fall through, Jerry
Springer
has already been approached to fill the role. Sammy Davis, Jr. has been
slated to provide the theme music ("Don't do the crime if you can't do
the time ... don't do it .... "). Open auditions are scheduled to be
held
to cast the numerous gaseous windbags that will be required to portray
Shapiro, Bailey, Dershowitz, Clark, Darden, et.al. Thousands
are
expected to turn out to compete for the coveted roles. Harold Braun is
tentatively scheduled to fill in for Johnny "Mr. Johnny" Cochran,
though
a spokesman for the DA's office was heard to say: "I knew Johnny
Cochran,
I worked with Johnny Cochran, Johnny Cochran was a friend of mine; you
sir are no Johnny Cochran." Braun countered by declaring that: "You
haven't
seen me in my ski cap yet."

I almost forgot ... I am apparently required by law to report that
the
body of missing intern Chandra Levy has been discovered in a Washington
park not far from the White House. Apparently there is a possibility
that
she met with foul play. Imagine my surprise. And in a truly shocking
development,
her body seems to have surfaced just in time to allow the media to once
again flog the story unmercifully, leaving little time to focus on
issues
of lesser importance. Of course, it is easy to understand why it took
more
than a year to locate her remains, given that they were cleverly hidden
under a layer of leaves.